IndridCold@lemmy.ca to politics @lemmy.world · 6 个月前Trump, 79, Claims It’s ‘Illegal’ for Late-Night Host to Mock Himwww.thedailybeast.comexternal-linkmessage-square84linkfedilinkarrow-up1648arrow-down18file-text
arrow-up1640arrow-down1external-linkTrump, 79, Claims It’s ‘Illegal’ for Late-Night Host to Mock Himwww.thedailybeast.comIndridCold@lemmy.ca to politics @lemmy.world · 6 个月前message-square84linkfedilinkfile-text
https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Fdonald-trump-claims-its-illegal-for-late-night-host-seth-meyers-to-mock-him%2F
minus-squarexxce2AAb@feddit.dklinkfedilinkarrow-up79·6 个月前Pft. Yeah, because Trump is known for caring so, so much about what’s legal. /s
minus-squareDarkCloud@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up59arrow-down1·6 个月前His legal understanding is “and they just let you do it, because you’re famous”… And for the most part he’s been correct.
minus-squarexxce2AAb@feddit.dklinkfedilinkarrow-up15·6 个月前Can’t really argue against that. Don’t want to either.
minus-squarerunning_ragged@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up28·6 个月前He does care about the law, just in the conservative way. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit
minus-squarexxce2AAb@feddit.dklinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down2·6 个月前I don’t disagree with you, but I see no reason to amend my statement.
minus-squareViking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up12·6 个月前Classic case of both of you being right so yeah 🤷🏻
minus-squareripcord@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·6 个月前Why would you think anyone felt you should amend your statement
Pft. Yeah, because Trump is known for caring so, so much about what’s legal. /s
His legal understanding is “and they just let you do it, because you’re famous”… And for the most part he’s been correct.
Can’t really argue against that. Don’t want to either.
He does care about the law, just in the conservative way.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
I don’t disagree with you, but I see no reason to amend my statement.
Classic case of both of you being right so yeah 🤷🏻
Why would you think anyone felt you should amend your statement